I live in a country that has very strong gun laws but am I less free than a citizen of the US ?

Neither my children or I get groped by TSA gorillas when passing through airport security, I don't get stopped by a paramilitary force for random checks to see if I'm a "terrorist" while on the highway or train or bus station, law enforcement officers don't shoot first and ask questions later, our security services do not overtly monitor text messages and emails and I can send my kids to school without any worry that some psycho with an assault rifle is going to use them for target practice.

If your only definition of freedom is the right to have a gun(s) in your house, you have a strange idea of freedom. The Patriot Act did more to take away American "freedom" than gun control ever would.

From what I see, the US proposals for gun control only limit the ownership of military grade weapons and high capacity magazines. Apart from the jerk off factor, why does a private citizen need to own weapons of this type ?

Only small game. Which in my state is smaller than a deer. Groundhogs, They get big and mean and Ive had them charge me when ive enterd there turf. It was my garden by the way. I have old eyes now days, So I like 100 yards (or a lot less.)

Michelle Malkin reported on Fox news last night that in New York state the Dems with their gun control laws do indeed want to take all arms from the citizen. In the law if you have one gun you get one bullet. Indeed a stupid law. While hunting one would need more then one round.

Even so, the report above about the reason for firearms is false from posters here, and a out and out lie. The intent of law is all that is needed for owning a firearm. That intent is tyranny from a standing army within our borders. It is unfortunate and a crime in my thoughts that my link was removed. Because the link gave the reasons for owning a firearm in my country from the mouths of the framers and founders. This is called intent. Of course if socialist, who in their mind want to re-engineer society must interject revisioniest history.

ID, you keep using the word socialist. On December 30th I for the third time I asked for your definition of what socialism is in order to understand what you are talking about. The forums have yet to hear your definition. Please share with us what you think a socialist is.

Michelle Malkin reported on Fox news last night that in New York state the Dems with their gun control laws do indeed want to take all arms from the citizen. In the law if you have one gun you get one bullet. Indeed a stupid law. While hunting one would need more then one round.

Even so, the report above about the reason for firearms is false from posters here, and a out and out lie. The intent of law is all that is needed for owning a firearm. That intent is tyranny from a standing army within our borders. It is unfortunate and a crime in my thoughts that my link was removed. Because the link gave the reasons for owning a firearm in my country from the mouths of the framers and founders. This is called intent. Of course if socialist, who in their mind want to re-engineer society must interject revisioniest history.

ID, you keep using the word socialist. On December 30th I for the third time I asked for your definition of what socialism is in order to understand what you are talking about. The forums have yet to hear your definition. Please share with us what you think a socialist is.

But we already know the answer. In his eyes anyone who is not a tea party admirer is a "socialist".

And I agree with TA that this is an issue of safety, not an issue of Liberal vs. Conservative.-Dave#2

Michelle Malkin reported on Fox news last night that in New York state the Dems with their gun control laws do indeed want to take all arms from the citizen. In the law if you have one gun you get one bullet. Indeed a stupid law. While hunting one would need more then one round.

Even so, the report above about the reason for firearms is false from posters here, and a out and out lie. The intent of law is all that is needed for owning a firearm. That intent is tyranny from a standing army within our borders. It is unfortunate and a crime in my thoughts that my link was removed. Because the link gave the reasons for owning a firearm in my country from the mouths of the framers and founders. This is called intent. Of course if socialist, who in their mind want to re-engineer society must interject revisioniest history.

The problem is that when members of one side go to to far (i.e. psycho gun owners who start shooting at innocent civilians instead of a tyrannical standing army). The civilians who then see themselves and their families as potential targets want something done to protect them from that potential threat (and justifiably so).

This means an over reaction from their side by wanting to take guns away from everybody. It isn't just "socialists", I'm pretty sure even the most ardent conservative wants their spouse and kids to come home in one piece at the end of the day. Think about it, is having armed guards in battle dress patrolling schools really the sort of atmosphere you want your kids (or grand kids) brought up in. It just just starts an arms race between the protectors and those that the kids are being protected from.

Do you want the US to become like Israel or some banana republic where there are armed militias patrolling the streets and the attendant risk of bystanders becoming "collateral damage" in a firefight in a shopping mall ? Even a "Constitutional Purist" like you has to realise that something has to be done. When people start shooting unarmed school kids just for the hell of it it's a sign of a very sick society.

Of course banning certain types of firearms wont be an overnight cure for the problem. There are just to many out there anyway (even in Australia there are people with AK47's buried in a secure place).

T.A.

Any attempt at changing the rule of law, I'm against. During our founding there was not a school shooting, or crazy person with a knife killing children. Why? During our founding we had the same arms as the Crown, close enough anyhow. Why? My oath did not come with a expiration date. I'm to defend my country from trouble within and with out. Since up brought up Israel am I to act like the other side and toss ricks at people shooting back with an uzi. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight! Are you daft sir? I cannot defend my family from our own government or an outside army with rocks.

You seem to have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word deterrent. The Genie is indeed out of the bottle and there is NOTHING I can do about it but arm myself and hope that the idiot I face will come to reason. If not I will kill that person, indeed I will. I have that God given right. I also have the personal responsibly to talk them out of it and I WILL try that first if given the chance but I will shoot and kill if I cannot.

EVERYONE want peace. It is built into them by Design. It is the ignoring of what is freely given by the Designer that makes for war. Of course all of us want our loved ones to come home safe. But accidents within the home take more lives then firearms. Shall we repeal to law of gravity? How in the hell can we do that!

"...very sick society."..you say. People are the SAME everywhere. What motivates them is the same EVERYWHERE. A man in China took a knife and killed many and hurt many the same day as the Sandiehook shooting. Your statement at best is wrong and at worst a deliberate shot at my country because of IT'S FREEDOMS. I'll ask again--are you daft sir? You don't seem to know what the hell you're talking about, nor do you understand humans. You display their nature never the less. That nature now days seems to be to blame the object in place of the persons lack of personal responsibility. And that seems to me to be a daft thing to do. Makes you a slave to the government if and when wish they make up their mind to JERK your chain and make you do as THEY wish, not the other way around.Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Since there is no other open thread for this type of debate I am creating one.

If reasonable people agree that understanding certain facts regarding any issue to be discussed we should converse about it. Most people don't understand the differences between firearms from semi-automatic, full automatic (machine guns that only a few people nationwide are allowed to have with expensive permits and supervision) vs revolvers, shotguns, handguns, etc.

When the average 'Joe and Jane' watches the news the ones portrayed by the politicans look scary. They have all kinds of mechanical parts portrayed in the movies by our favorite film stars. This shouldn't have any influence on your decision when voting legislative actions that may be coming.

Like too many issues that are political the arguments are emotional and not rational. An opinion that is malinformed isn't one to be considered. At minimum any one that comments on guns (Pelosi!!??) should have some basic knowledge of crime statistics and other variables.

FBI Statistics show that many more violent crimes are prevented by a citizen when confronted with a violent predator than murders. The vast majority of these incidents occur without the victim firing her/ his weapon.

The gun is the great equalizer. A woman especially can feel safer at home knowing that if a predator breaks in to her house she has that as a resort.

Practically speaking for the USA. There won't be a way to exhaust this supply since guns, well preserved or even left in a closet, are still functional as they were.

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

This is a bit outdated as the post I was answering is no longer visible but I think there are still some valid points here.

Any attempt at changing the rule of law, I'm against. During our founding there was not a school shooting, or crazy person with a knife killing children.{/quote]
And if there had been. What do you think would have been the reaction of the sponsors of the 2nd amendment ?

[quote].... I cannot defend my family from our own government or an outside army with rocks.

You might as well because I bet if you start waving a gun around a "tyrannical army" will just call in a drone strike

You seem to have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word deterrent. The Genie is indeed out of the bottle and there is NOTHING I can do about it but arm myself and hope that the idiot I face will come to reason. If not I will kill that person, indeed I will. I have that God given right. I also have the personal responsibly to talk them out of it and I WILL try that first if given the chance but I will shoot and kill if I cannot.

You are assuming a face to face confrontation. The general discussion here is one where you're picked off from a 100 yards away without even knowing what hit you.

EVERYONE want peace. It is built into them by Design. It is the ignoring of what is freely given by the Designer that makes for war. Of course all of us want our loved ones to come home safe. But accidents within the home take more lives then firearms. Shall we repeal to law of gravity? How in the hell can we do that!

We can't repeal the law of gravity, which around the home usually only kills or injures one person at a time. I'm pretty sure "The Designer" did not give us semi automatic weapons though. I also remember "The Designer" saying something about "Thou shalt not kill"

"...very sick society."..you say. People are the SAME everywhere. What motivates them is the same EVERYWHERE. A man in China took a knife and killed many and hurt many the same day as the Sandiehook shooting. Your statement at best is wrong and at worst a deliberate shot at my country because of IT'S FREEDOMS.

I repeat ANY society that tolerates the shooting of unarmed school kids without taking steps to prevent such actions is sick. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in any country's constitution about the freedom to shoot unarmed civilians.

That nature now days seems to be to blame the object in place of the persons lack of personal responsibility.

I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

And that good sir is the problem. It's easier to control the the sticks than the irresponsible children. Of course a particularly naughty child will always be able to find a stick, but it makes it harder for them to find one than if there are plenty of sticks just lying around.

There is no logic in the reasoning that the answer to a "stick" problem is more "sticks"

That nature now days seems to be to blame the object in place of the persons lack of personal responsibility.

I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating. If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?

I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating.

That isn't true, Gary. Having broken up many fights between children I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?

Most shootings happen in a moment of temper. Everyone loses their temper at some point in their lives. Some people who are under a lot of pressure in another part in their lives can snap and in a moment of fury want to lash out at people close to them. If they pick up a stick in their fury, they most likely hit out once then realise what they have done and stop. Unfortunately a lot of shootings occur in the home when exactly this situation has occurred, but rather than throwing dishes, or putting fists through walls, a gun is used. The consequences are often fatal. A moment of madness, just one moment and with access to a gun, lives are destroyed.

In your analogy you are suggesting that if someones gun is taken off them they will just pick up another gun. Rocks may be lying around in the street, but we should be living in a world where guns are not.Reality Internet Personality

I don't blame the "object", the problem is definitely with the user who has a lack of personal responsibility. However, if you see two children fighting and one starts to beat the other with a stick, do you just decry the lack of responsibility in that child and let them continue with the beating or do you take the stick away from them ? Also you will probably go round and pick up any other loose sticks to make sure it doesn't happen again and only let any child that's around hold a stick under controlled circumstances.

I drag the kid with the stick off to a rubber room because I know if I don't and only take the stick he will just grab a rock and keep on beating.

That isn't true, Gary. Having broken up many fights between children I can tell you that is absolutely not true.

If we go your way eventually we have taken away every movable object, er isn't that a good description of a rubber room?

Most shootings happen in a moment of temper. Everyone loses their temper at some point in their lives. Some people who are under a lot of pressure in another part in their lives can snap and in a moment of fury want to lash out at people close to them. If they pick up a stick in their fury, they most likely hit out once then realise what they have done and stop. Unfortunately a lot of shootings occur in the home when exactly this situation has occurred, but rather than throwing dishes, or putting fists through walls, a gun is used. The consequences are often fatal. A moment of madness, just one moment and with access to a gun, lives are destroyed.

In your analogy you are suggesting that if someones gun is taken off them they will just pick up another gun. Rocks may be lying around in the street, but we should be living in a world where guns are not.

Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

I think the reason that we are having this discussion is because, unlike the knife attack that happened in China where 22 children were injured, 20 children were killed in Sandy Hook.

The difference is that in one case the weapon used was a knife, in the other the weapon used was a gun.

There really is a huge difference between an injured child and a dead one.

I agree, it would be great if there were no "weapons" of any sort, but we aren't.

The control of firearms is about controlling the risk by controlling something that it is possible to control.

Here in the UK we have some pretty serious firearms control, we also have controls on the knives, and other things that might be used as weapons. The don't stop people being shot, stabbed or hit with a blunt object, they reduce the risk of such acts.

As far as I can see the biggest obstacle in the US to sensible gun control is the NRA and the industry that supports them in generating a culture of paranoia. This paranoia instils in people the fear that if they don't have a gun they will get shot by someone with a gun. Since when did owning a gun stop someone being shot? In an encounter with an armed person even if you hit with your first shot someone has been shot - think how many people in our armed services have been shot in the last 100 years.Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Many years ago, when I first underwent any firearms training, our instructor, an old Corporal, handed us all mirrors at start of the first session in the training room. He told us to look at our faces "Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now looking at the most dangerous part of any weapon system - remember and learn".

This was before he lifted the cloths of the table at the front and uncovered enough small arms, automatics and other weapons to start a war, "These weapons are all perfectly safe despite being loaded, they are sitting on a table not being held in someone's hands". A salutatory lesson was learnt by all that day.Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Wouldn't the world be so rosy and nice if the word weapon didn't exist in any language. Take off the rose colored glasses. If you take one weapon away a different one will be used. Is a dozen sticks with a 10 inch kitchen knife somehow to be so preferred to a single bullet? I suppose one is more likely to cause society to spend large sums on health care over the other.

I think the reason that we are having this discussion is because, unlike the knife attack that happened in China where 22 children were injured, 20 children were killed in Sandy Hook.

The difference is that in one case the weapon used was a knife, in the other the weapon used was a gun.

There really is a huge difference between an injured child and a dead one.

The line needs to be drawn.

We are having this discussion because you have all forgotten that the weapon of choice for the Manson family was the knife.

Many years ago, when I first underwent any firearms training, our instructor, an old Corporal, handed us all mirrors at start of the first session in the training room. He told us to look at our faces "Ladies and Gentlemen, you are now looking at the most dangerous part of any weapon system - remember and learn".

This was before he lifted the cloths of the table at the front and uncovered enough small arms, automatics and other weapons to start a war, "These weapons are all perfectly safe despite being loaded, they are sitting on a table not being held in someone's hands". A salutatory lesson was learnt by all that day.

So vary true. It is the person who is the danger. More so if they are not trained.

I have no firearms at this moment.
However. I defend my RIGHT to own then at any point in time I feel my security is jeopordized. Like today, like right now, like at any point I choose.
My choice right now......?
A nice, stainless .45 auto with a 9 shot clip. And several spare clips.
I happen to know what it takes to stop an intruder. Six shots or only five, as Clint said........it took seven. He did NOT stop until the last round hit his chest. You want me to empty my clip and then say.....Oh, shit? Not on my watch, morons.

And this is such an inane argument anyway you are having.

The second amendment is NOT about having a gun in the house to fend off criminals..
There were just not that many criminals at that time.

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?Always remember.....kitties are all Angels with fur.

I have no firearms at this moment.
However. I defend my RIGHT to own then at any point in time I feel my security is jeopordized. Like today, like right now, like at any point I choose.
My choice right now......?
A nice, stainless .45 auto with a 9 shot clip. And several spare clips.
I happen to know what it takes to stop an intruder. Six shots or only five, as Clint said........it took seven. He did NOT stop until the last round hit his chest. You want me to empty my clip and then say.....Oh, shit? Not on my watch, morons.

And this is such an inane argument anyway you are having.

The second amendment is NOT about having a gun in the house to fend off criminals..
There were just not that many criminals at that time.

It was about, and right now is about, having the means to defend the public against.
Illegal search and seizure, and the 'don't tread upon me' legalities of a corrupted government. Which is what we have right now.

You cannot see the corruption at the federal level that is happening right now?

I'll repost this for you Mark because it seem to have got lost in the kerfuffle.

"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions.[52]"

An interesting, well researched paper on the true history of the 2nd amendment. Also explains where I.D. is getting his information from.

It does appear that the 2nd amendment was drafted so that the Southern States could protect themselves from a slave uprising.Reality Internet Personality